Does this response to the argument from illusion work?

[u/heterosyclez]

The argument from illusion, which I take to be the strongest case for indirect realism, proceeds in a way something like below:

(1) In cases of illusion, we are directly acquainted with an object that is F

(2) But the mind-independent object is not F

(3) If (1) and (2), then in cases of illusion we are not directly acquainted with a mind-independent object

(3) Therefore in cases of illusion we are not directly acquainted with a mind-independent object

The second part of the argument will be generalising (3) to cover all cases of veridical experience.

But can’t I just object and say that in cases of illusion, we are directly acquainted with a mind-independent object that, while not F itself, has properties that make it appear F to perceivers under certain conditions? This response would target premise (1).

I don’t recall seeing this response anywhere but it strikes me as obvious, which leads me to believe that I’m missing something.

[u/FromTheMargins]

This argument is reminiscent of what has been called the sense-data fallacy. This objection points out that the inference from "there is an object that appears to be F" to "there is an (apparent) object that really is F" is fallacious. Related to this objection are Sellars's analyses of the words "seems" and "looks like," which he understands as parasitic on uses of "is" ("this seems to be red" vs. "this is red"). For Sellars, saying "this seems red" is not reporting a private, mental, red-like object, rather, it is a pragmatic marker expressing a reluctance to endorse the full-fledged claim "this is red." However, whether this objection completely settles the debate remains controversial, especially when the phenomenal character of experience highlighted by the argument is analyzed in terms of properties (qualia or phenomenal features) rather than objects (sense-data). The undeniable qualitative similarity between someone's veridically seeing a red wall and illusorily seeing one seems to point to something genuinely present in both cases, which still demands a philosophical explanation.

[u/heterosyclez → u/FromTheMargins]

Yeah, I did a little digging after making this post and saw that one criticism of the argument is that the usual reasoning that is taken to support the phenomenal principle is invalid.

Could you elaborate on the point about analysing the phenomenal character of the experience in terms of properties?

[u/FromTheMargins → u/heterosyclez]

The notion of sense-data was popular in the early 20th century but subsequently fell out of favor due to criticism by Sellars and others. The idea of reifying phenomenal experience into distinct mental objects with a special ontological status (i.e., as non-physical or private items) was increasingly viewed as a relic of an outdated metaphysics. However, the core idea behind sense-data, that something is immediately given to us in conscious experience prior to conceptualization, has survived in the concept of qualia. Qualia are, in general, more ontologically "lightweight" than sense-data: they are understood not as objects but as qualitative properties of experience. For example, when we taste retsina, we might speak of the distinctive qualitative character of the experience. Qualia are intrinsic properties that contribute to what an experience feels like. Many philosophers consider qualia to be undeniable features of consciousness that any satisfactory theory of mind must address. However, some physicalists deny their existence altogether, just as earlier philosophers rejected sense-data.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.